‘Nicola Sturgeon chose to share such deeply personal information so that young women did not feel they had to sacrifice their family ambitions for a political career.’
Photograph: Andrew Milligan/PA

Over the weekend, the Sunday Times published extracts from a new book in which Nicola Sturgeon openly discusses the fact that she has no children and revealed how she experienced a miscarriage six years ago at the age of 40.

In the interview Sturgeon said: “If the miscarriage hadn’t happened, would I be sitting here as first minister right now? It’s an unanswerable question. I just don’t know. I’ve thought about it, but I don’t know the answer. I’d like to think yes, because I could have shown that having a child wasn’t a barrier to all of this, but in truth I don’t know.”

Well, do we know? Could Sturgeon have still been first minister if she had children? Of course, the common assumption is that women have to sacrifice motherhood in order to succeed in their careers but simultaneously are criticised for doing so.

Recently, we have seen these arguments readily applied to female politicians, not least this summer when Conservative leadership candidate Andrea Leadsom said she was better suited to the role than her rival Theresa May because she was a mother and May was not. The Sunday Times ran a “childless politician” panel alongside the Sturgeon article which featured only women. Over the past decade, leaders such as Angela Merkel, Julia Gillard and May have been subject to speculation about their lack of motherhood. My particular favourite – Gillard’s empty fruit bowl in her kitchen being read as symbolising her barrenness.

‘The Sunday Times ran a ‘childless politician’ panel alongside the Sturgeon article which featured only women.’ Photograph: Clipshare

But does being a mother really mean you are less likely to enter politics? The data available on parenthood and politics is limited, however recent research by Professor Rosie Campbell and Professor Sarah Childs provides an insight.

Firstly, the parenthood gap between men and women MPs suggests that having a child could have made Sturgeon less likely to enter politics than her male colleagues. Examining the parenthood status of the 2010 intake of Westminster MPs, Campbell and Childs found that 69% (444) of MPs had children. Female MPs were more likely to be childless: 45% of female MPs had no children compared to 28% of male MPs. This compares with 20% of women born in 1966 who remain childless in the national population.

Alternatively, Sturgeon may have succeeded, but four years later than her male counterparts. Even when politicians do have children there is a gap: the average age of a female MP’s eldest child when they first enter parliament is 16; for men it is 12. Interestingly, when Margaret Thatcher, perhaps the most famous mother in British politics, became leader of the Conservative party, her twins were 21.

Things are looking up for mothers in politics, however. The difference in the number of male and female MPs without children was at its smallest among the 2010 intake compared to previous cohorts of Westminster MPs. Perhaps this is to be expected as it becomes more common for men to take on greater childcare responsibilities. Furthermore, Westminster has made some (limited) steps towards becoming a more inclusive and diverse workplace for MPs and staff, for example with the creation of a nursery and the provision of childcare vouchers for MPs. The Scottish parliament has similar facilities.

We cannot sit back on our laurels though – just because some change has happened does not mean continued progress is inevitable. Childs’ recent report The Good Parliament laid out a framework for how the government could become more diverse and inclusive,such as reviewing childcare arrangements. These reforms and others should be considered if the gap between male and female childlessness is to close and if the wider under-representation of women in British politics is addressed.

More widely the way we discuss women in public life needs to change. The Sunday Times demonstrated that women face the additional scrutiny of their motherhood – or lack of. This can be discouraging for women who might consider politics as a career. Would you really want to enter a world where Liz Kendall was dubbed a “childless spinster” when she stood for leadership of her party? Or, where the Daily Telegraph thought it appropriate to comment that May’s lack of children, “could be a turn-off for some but it does mean she is less likely to be distracted on the job”?

Sturgeon chose to share such deeply personal information so that young women did not feel they had to sacrifice their family ambitions for a political career. We cannot know for certain whether she would have been first minister if she’d had children but we do know, as she rightly said herself: “There is still so much to do, through better childcare, more progressive working practices and more enlightened attitudes, to make sure we don’t feel we have to choose.”